Did Montanans Just Vote to Allow Infanticide?

You don’t have to be religious to oppose abortion. And you certainly don’t need to be religious to oppose murder. So, Americans of all backgrounds are shocked by the vote on Montana’s “born alive” Referendum 131, which, according to Townhall’s Leah Barkoukis, would have required “medical care for infants born alive, including in an abortion.”

Let’s say, only for argument’s sake, a pro-lifer was to concede a baby still in the womb is not “alive.” There is zero argument a living baby, outside the womb, is not alive. If allowing that baby to die, killing by neglect, is not murder, then at what point after birth can’t a human being be allowed to die from neglect?

An hour? A day? A month? A year? Anytime? The radical left always pushes the moral/ethical envelope, morally desensitizing people, so they can no longer define life.

Newborn Baby Boy

Can anyone imagine walking down the street, seeing a helpless newborn on a bench, and not helping that baby? What’s the difference between that baby and a baby on a delivery room table?

The argument Referendum 131 makes doesn’t pertain to abortion because it’s specifically about babies “born alive.” And it appears Montana voters have just sanctioned murder by neglect—intentional neglect.

Some election observers say Montanans voted against the initiative because the arguments were “confusing.” Barkoukis wrote, “Proponents said it would give persons born alive legal protections that entitles them to medical care so they are not left to die, while opponents said infanticide is already illegal in the state.”

Oddly, “medical organizations rallied to oppose…” providing care to infants born alive even after an attempted abortion. They absurdly argued it would “criminalize healthcare providers for offering palliative care at the parents’ request to infants who will not survive.”

If the baby is legitimately going to die, how could providing compassionate end-of-life care put medical staff in legal jeopardy? The measure would have outlawed not providing care.

Promoters intended the initiative to prevent those who shall “first, do no harm” from doing harm. 

Mom with a newborn baby

Though the issue may have some legitimate grey areas, the argument should side with life. To protect medical providers from failing to provide medical care to any human being, no matter how long they’ve been out of the womb, is despicable. 

Join The Discussion

Related Posts